Open letter to Spotter Network

[Wes Carter]

Rest assured, however, SpotterNetwork isn't the only system capable of tracking speed information. My own car is full of specialized goodies (from video to speed radar to license plate capture) that can spell major trouble for anyone seriously crossing the line --be they storm chasers, drunk drivers, or road ragers. Don't believe me, check out the final episodes of Storm Chasers this year and see how well things worked out for the TIV. Chase safe, have a good time. Chase like a maniac and you'll get what you've got coming to you.

..Chris..

I have a couple of questions. Are you a police officer? And are you the person that caught the TIV passing in a no-passing zone?

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

Hey, it's a free country. People are free to chug a fifth of whiskey and weave into a wedge going 120mph, and Chris Novy is free to videotape them and turn them into an awesome talk at next year's Chasercon.

 

[Jason Foster]

Wow...this almost has gone 'viral' for a thread here on ST...LOL. Was busy "experimenting" making a YT video go viral (the NYC plow truck destruction)...I think it worked...just wish it was my own video), otherwise probably would have contributed more here along the way (I'm only upto post 20 attm).

I can't believe the crazy reactions and such for this and other issues over time. Considering how many things in the chaser world have played out...I know there are often other motives for such public statements made by certain people. Problem is...one often doesn't know when they are genuine posts for discussion, or folks setting up opportunities to provide themselves some sort of advantage.

I guess all I'm saying....the next few months will be interest to watch...see what happens to pop up (or not pop up). I probably put this thread with an expected expiration date of four days from now.

 

[Tim Vasquez]

I have stepped in and done some editing of this thread to remove the derail / flame war (which should not be continued or discussed any further). There were also a couple of unrelated ad hominem posts that were in bad taste and warranted infractions, and which have been removed.

There have been some top-notch posts in this thread about privacy issues and the spotter networks, which shores this topic up well enough to let it continue.

Thanks,

Tim

 

[Jeff Smith]

Now that the thread is back open, I want to publically thank Tyler for his explanation and comments. I also want to apologize publically to Tyler for my comments concerning his earlier replies. We all now see how this all went down and I for one am glad that the IEM site is gone. It is also my bad for not fully understanding how the data could be archived by anyone and used for whatever reason they wish. Knowing now what I did not understand, I will not use SN simply because of that. Call it what you want, but it's my decision. I will still do my service reporting severe weather, just by other means.

 

[Tim Vasquez]

I want to apologize for bringing up the other spotter website in my post above (which I won't mention as they didn't want to be a part of this debate) -- this was an error on my part trying to take in what was going on here. Also as far as this thread being locked, that was not done by me. I had intended to keep it open, though I apparently failed to state that explicitly.

Tim

 

[Shawn Gossman]

You know I am no one special, no big name in the spotter/chaser field but I will say... I just like to stick with the real official spotter network...Skywarn Less drama...

 

[rdale]

That's no more "official" than Skywarn, and trust me - in the big picture - there is MUCH more drama in the ham world than in SN.

I will never forget the all-out rumbles that occurred when the Skywarn group leaders at the NWS office insisted that we use 6M for comms, even though they went to pot when a storm line passed between us. We went to the (insert shock here) PHONE when we couldn't use the radio, and about got cut off from the Skywarn system as a result. Their suggestion was that we send the info through four unlinked 2M repeaters instead, just having someone in range of 2 at a time relay the info.

 

[Jason Foster]

That's no more "official" than Skywarn, and trust me - in the big picture - there is MUCH more drama in the ham world than in SN.

Oh my god....you telling me. Everyday since giving it up months and months ago...I'm still not regretting it. Now looking at it from the outside:

LOL...do I get an infraction for making an ad hom. attack at a hobby...because I know I piss a ton of people off every time I bring this up.


I think in the end...with IEM taking their deal down...it'll fade and those that may have left SN will be back (hence my earlier post).

Was kinda surprised the thread was locked....maybe a mistake...it's happened a few times (even on non-issue threads).

 

[John Wetter]

This is a good privacy discussion but I hope people go away from the discussion just knowing the facts as the information provided by SN continues to make a larger impact in warning operations.

 

[Ryan Davis]

Precisely, Chris. And this is why I ALWAYS turn off my SN at a random distance from where I'm stopping that night. Yes it's not perfect... but it's better than just leading all you crumbs straight to me.

For instance, I could write an application that determines your home location --based on average occurrence of your SN icon-- and then sell that information to VictimizeMe.com so that thieves could burglarize your home when the data shows you're gone. Or perhaps I could use the data to know when you are out storm chasing and are staying at a motel (a quick GIS cross-reference) so that I can find your vehicle and steal all of your video equipment.

 

[Jason Foster]

The discussion on home locations is funny as hell when it comes from ham radio operators. HELLO! FCC database.

 

[Tim Shriver]

That's no more "official" than Skywarn, and trust me - in the big picture - there is MUCH more drama in the ham world than in SN.

I will never forget the all-out rumbles that occurred when the Skywarn group leaders at the NWS office insisted that we use 6M for comms, even though they went to pot when a storm line passed between us. We went to the (insert shock here) PHONE when we couldn't use the radio, and about got cut off from the Skywarn system as a result. Their suggestion was that we send the info through four unlinked 2M repeaters instead, just having someone in range of 2 at a time relay the info.

Shocking, I agree with rdale.

While Skywarn is not exclusive to ham operators hams do make up much of it. Thus drama does occur from time to time.

I have always thought that if a WFO is running a 2 way radio system, most of which are ham, for the receiving of storm reports it should be a Business Band system and not a ham system.

This removes the "rag chewer" issues and removes ARES/RACEs from the power structure. It seems, at least around here, that you need to be a ham to be a Skywarn Rep. This should not be so. While I support ARES/RACES I think they have to heavy a hand in the NWS right now.


It also make it a private frequency. I think this would be a major plus.

No comment on the SN issue as we do not use it.


Tim

 

[Jeff Smith]

I have always thought that if a WFO is running a 2 way radio system, most of which are ham, for the receiving of storm reports it should be a Business Band system and not a ham system.

Tim

Tim, I don't understand your thinking. If the NWS would go to business band to recieve reports, then your spotters would have to purchase expensive equipment just to be able to volunteer reports, hence cutting down dramatically your spotter base. Locally, we don't have any "rag-chewing" problems when severe wx is occurring and Tulsa has one of the best link systems (W5IAS)that I have seen. As soon as a net is called, all the rag chewing stops. It works really well in this area. There has been talk of going digital but you would have the same issue--volunteer spotters needing to buy expensive rigs just to be able to call in reports.

Note to mods--this ham discussion may need split into another thread so not to dreail the ongiong thread.

 

[Tim Shriver]

Tim, I don't understand your thinking. If the NWS would go to business band to recieve reports, then your spotters would have to purchase expensive equipment just to be able to volunteer reports, hence cutting down dramatically your spotter base. Locally, we don't have any "rag-chewing" problems when severe wx is occurring and Tulsa has one of the best link systems (W5IAS)that I have seen. As soon as a net is called, all the rag chewing stops. It works really well in this area. There has been talk of going digital but you would have the same issue--volunteer spotters needing to buy expensive rigs just to be able to call in reports.

Note to mods--this ham discussion may need split into another thread so not to dreail the ongiong thread.

$250 for the repeater license.

Used Motorola radios are cheap. You can get a P1225 (HT) which works on both ham and Business Band (BizBand) for around $150 used but in good shape.
Same with a mobile or base M1225s run about the same price. Around $150 to $200 used.
So the cost for equipment is in-line with ham.
Same with repeater and antennas. We use the same kind of repeaters
for both ham and business band.

With our WFO spotters do not use the NWS backbone (2 meter ham repeater system). They must put the report
into a local spotter group and that spotter group then goes on to the NWS backbone to submit the report. So not all spotters would have to have one. Just the spotter groups relay person.

spotter>relay person>WFO

If you attempt to put in a storm report via the NWS backbone you will be directed to a local spotter group frequency. There are few exceptions.

We have the same good luck with the ham side as you do. But I have seen
instances when a ham comes on and starts arguing with the radio folks at the WFO on the backbone.

We have used Business Band for many years, we have added the ham side of things just in the past 4 years. So we have a few years experience with both.

Cost wise, the $250 for the Business Band license is the only extra cost when compared with ham.

The added bonus to Bizband is that the user does not need to take a test.
You, as the Bizband license holder grants the users permission to use the system. No tests, no ARRL, no OO and its is a private frequency in most cases.

Bizband also has the side affect of getting folks interested in getting their ham
tickets as well. Win Win!


Try it, you might like it!

Tim
Note: I know that not all WFOs run things the same way as our does so this may or may not
apply to you. Just something that works for us and has some good benefits as well.